2522 N. Calvert St Baltimore, Maryland 21218 443-825-7031 cwals99@yahoo.com The Appellant makes the following response to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals opinion to rule in favor of dismissal of this complaint.

The Circuit Court and this Court of Special Appeals must review and take as a whole not only the Amended Complaint but all motions made in the course of this case. Judge Deborah S. Arthur made the same statement as did the Circuit Court judge----‘did not identify any specific act or omission by them that was in violation of the election laws’. The Amended Complaint did in fact have shortfalls in communicating properly the details of these charges. As Pro Se, it was assumed the Complaint was simply to relay the plaintiff’s charge and relief with the details of evidence to be brought out in trial. So, when the Motion to Dismiss from appellee was received, the Appellant responded in her Response to Motion to Dismiss all of the details the judges now say was not forthcoming. The Amended Complaint is not the only source in this procedure giving the judge the information from which to set trial date.

The Response to Motion to Dismiss did indeed list the institutions involved in election irregularities and it gave date, time, and place these irregularities occurred.More violations would have been given if the case was allowed time for trial.The Appellant went into great detail in the Brief for Maryland Court of Special Appeals of which IRS 501c3 and FCC media election laws were violated and how.The censure of the Appellant from the Democratic Primary election coverage and events was complete in the media and complete in all major 501c3 venues.It is clear -----501c3 organizations cannot participate in elections in any way that harms a candidate----it must include all candidates in a race.Again, this was a major party primary----Democratic, not a third party.Just taking one 501c3---University of Maryland system having several forums all of which refused to include the Appellant.These 501c3 election laws do not allow anorganization to avoid these laws by partnering with media outlets that have more flexibility in how they can participate in elections.These partnerships do not void responsibility of 501c3s to their IRS election requirements to do no harm to any candidate.

This issue for 501c3 election law clearly extends to political election committees under the umbrella of the Maryland Board of Elections.It is well documented that Doug Gansler, Anthony Brown, and Heather Mizeur scheduled meetings with one another for the express purpose of consensus to time, place, and media corporation covering 3 forum events.They did that of their own choice----no outside force made them have these meetings or to exclude Cindy Walsh from these meetings.That action created the violation of IRS election laws that say----501c3s cannot harm a candidate and must include all candidates.This is the complaint the Appellant has with the Appellee Gansler, Brown, and Mizeur.

All of the above occurred under the watch of the Maryland Board of Elections and the Appellant brought these violations to the attention on more than one occasion to Mack and Lamone as well as the Maryland Attorney General’s Office which was then Doug Gansler. Both of these institutions are charged by Maryland Constitution to provide oversight and accountability of the Maryland election process to include enforcing both Federal and Maryland State election laws. The Appellant never received a response from either institution.Judge Arthur states there were no list of election irregularities nor any dates.The judge states the candidate defendants ‘ excluded her from forumsand did not allege they organized or sponsored the forums.This is not true.The brief clearly stated that these candidate defendants excluded Cindy Walsh from participation in the organizing and setting of dates, times, and places of 3 forums….it was theresponsibility of the event 501c3 or media to include the Appellant in these forums.Again, I explained in the brief how 501c3 election laws do not allow for this exclusion.The judge states ‘nor does she point to any law or regulation requiring that a candidate be included in every debate or other candidate forum’.Again, IRS election laws are firm----a 501c3 will not harm any candidate and must include all candidates’ in a race.This was stated in the Appellant’s brief as well as the Circuit Court complaint and motions.This means every forum an organization gives.If University of Maryland has events on campuses all over Maryland, then as a 501c3 it must allow all candidates in a race to participate.

To make an aside to this to bring in media and FCC election law because I will be taking this to Federal Court.FCC election laws do not have the same requirements of equal opportunity and time that 501c3 laws do. FCC laws require media to provide opportunity to all candidates in a race and they include the requirement to include all platforms as these laws are meant to give voters the opportunity to go to the polls having knowledge of all candidates and platform issues.Cindy Walsh had a platform with issues never discussed throughout the primary election by media outlets.This is a clear violation of FCC election law.Federal court precedent overwhelmingly rules with this stance.Even Supreme Court rulings made these distinctions.So, in Maryland, all media outlets falling under FCC control violated these election laws and the Appellant again notified both the Maryland Board of Elections and the Maryland Attorney General’s Office of these violations with no acknowledgement or response.

The Appellant provided all the IRS and FCC election laws and detailed accounts of why these laws were relevant to this case and election.It is a grave injustice for the Appellant to have these charges dismissed without having a day in court at the

Court of Special Appeals or Baltimore Circuit Court.

Dismissal because it was untimely.

The Maryland State Election laws state that a candidate may contest an election within three days after an election becomes certified. It is clear that the candidate must wait for this election certification before a contest is filed. So, the date of the election is not the focal point. The date of certification of this election is the start of this 3 day limit to file a complaint. Now, regarding the 10 day limit to take individual election irregularities to court. The law states that these complaints can be made at the time of the infraction or they can be taken to court after the election. It would have been an incredible burden financially, and of time for the Appellant to take to court each time and each organization violating these laws because these violations were systemic. They occurred all the time especially with the larger election venues. A candidate who files complaints with the Maryland Board of Elections and Attorney General’s Office must wait to hear from those offices. One does not assume these institutions will not respond. There was no violation of filing date by the Appellant.